proved But between Independent Nations where force on one side is lawful where there is no superior Judge to determin the differences or to judge whether force were justly imposed both sides either thinking or pretending they are in the Right all Leagues and Covenants by whatever forcible means obtained are valid and the Good of Mankind which is a sufficient Reason does require it should be so otherwise Wars would be perpetual or not to be ended but by the utter Ruin of the Weaker or Conquered Party because there could be no manner of Agreement or Peace between them if they had a Liberty under pretence of Force of breaking their Promises whenever they had an opportunity In all such cases it is Lawful to Promise there being no Superior as amongst private persons to take from them the Liberty of making such Contracts and the Good of Mankind does oblige People to fulfil those Lawful Promises They cannot properly be said to be forced to Promise because it was in their power to avoid Promising Nor is their Consent Conditional but Absolute and it is their greater Good either presumed or real that obliges them to make such Contracts For the same reason all Prisoners of War are obliged to stand to their Paroles and to pay whatever they promise for their Liberties The reason is the same for paying Allegiance to the New Government whether by a just or unjust way the old one was dissolved and Mankind have all along equally submitted to Conquerors whether the Cause of Conquest were Just or not As few Conquerors have had a Just Cause for all the Mischiefs they have done The reason for Submission is not how one Man gets others into his Power or whether he had a just Cause of destroying the former Prince's Power but whether they consent to be Governed by him after they are in his Power It is for their own sake and not for his that they submit to his Government They may act against their own Good in not submitting to the Conqueror but they deny him no Right if they do not submit It is not the Conquest it self let it be never so just but the after-consent that makes them Subjects A Just Cause of War may make it no injustice to Dethrone a King becanse he gave sufficient Provocation but how can one Prince's injuring another absolve Subjects of their Oaths of Allegiance and give the Injured Prince a Right to Command them who if he hath any Right besides their Consent when he has put them into a capacity to Consent must have it before the Conquest for mere Force cannot give or take away a Right it can only put him in Possession of his Right and if he had any Right to their Allegiance before Conquest I cannot see but that in Conscience they were bound to Transfer their Allegiance and join with him against their former Prince who by giving a just cause of War had Forfeited his Crown Though the Nation be not Conquered yet no reason can be urged for submitting to Conquerors but what will hold as strongly for paying Allegiance to the present Government Has not the Late King as much lost his Power to Protect the People as if he had been driven out by Conquest Is it not the Present Government alone that makes the People a Civil Society Is it not by it that they are Protected in their natural Rights or can claim any Legal ones which are the only reasons which oblige People to submit to Conquerors And are not they that endeavour to disturb it as much within the power and reach of the Government as if they were Conquered And has not the King and Parliament as Absolute a Power as any Conqueror The only difference is That without feeling any of those fatal Miseries which attend Conquest they enjoy the Protection of the Government and owe their Preservation to it and the Nation instead of losing any of their Rights and Liberties enjoy greater and are secured from the worst of Slaveries which otherwise they had inevitably fallen into So that they have infinitely stronger obligations to pay Allegiance than if they had been Conquered to which their Zeal and Loyalty ought to be proportionable CHAP. IX Of Possession ALL Writers I think allow That after a Possession of a long continuance though they extreamly differ how much time is necessary a Right does accrue to the Possessor though there are some of the Right Line still in being If it be unjust to pay the first Possessor Obedience I cannot see how a long Possession can alter the case A continuance in an injustice may make the injustice greater but not alter the nature of things and make the greatest Wrong to be Right Though all things are done in Time yet Time it self operates nothing This Mistake as a great many others are is occasioned by the parallel men draw between private Persons who are tyed up by Laws that are Enacted by the Supreme Powers and the Supreme Powers themselves By the Laws of most Nations if private men neglect to make a Legal demand of their Rights in a certain time appointed by the Laws they lose them and a Right does accrue to the possessor but this depends upon a Law Enacted by the Supreme powers who have a Right to dispose of private Estates as they judge best for the publick good whose Laws can oblige none but their own Subjects But what authority have the Subjects or the possessor to dispose of the Legal Prince's Rights Besides it might justly be imputed to a private man 's own neglect if when the Law is open he does not recover his Right It may well be presumed he hath relinquished it But that cannot be said of a Prince who has no Court of Justice to appeal to or any other likely way to recover his Right yet by bearing the Arms and Title and by other ways still asserts his Right How numerous are the instances of Princes possessed of Territories belonging to others and who have been so for a great many years Yet none dare affirm the Subjects that pay them allegiance are and have been all along Traitors To give but one instance amongst hundreds The Kings of England have a Right to the Kingdom of France and have constantly claimed it by causing themselves to be stiled Kings of France and by bearing the Arms of that Crown yet none will condemn the French as Traitors who have all along paid allegiance to the French Kings But if the Kings of England by tract of time have lost their Right to the Obedience of the French and before that time it was Treason for those of that Nation to pay allegiance to the French Kings I should be glad to know what Month or Year it ceased to be Treason for it is a thing of mighty consequence to know how long it is Treason to obey a King in possession and when it becomes Treason not to obey him In short if a King can have a
obedience to the Laws when they are put in execution for his sake because in it wholy consists his Protection and he that is willing the Government should have power over all other people upon his account ought to be willing the Government should have the same power over him for the sake of others except he would be the only man in the Nation without Government and is unwilling to do that himself which he would have all others whatever their Principles are to do If the Nonjurers do desire to be protected and do actually receive the protection of the Government though at the same time they pretend it is against their Consciences it is manifest they do own the Government and by their Actions consent to submit to it and what force can a Protestation have against their own Acts Do not the Jacobites upon all occasions â—â—y for protection to the Government and apply themselves to those Ministers as Legal Officers who act by no other Authority than their Majesties And have they not constant recourse to the Courts whose Proceedings are in their Majesties names and authority Do not all Writs run in their names and do they not Prosecute people in their Majesties names as acting against the Crown and Dignity of our Sovereign Lord and Lady King William and Queen Mary c. And do they not apply themselves to the King's Ministers for the benefit of those very Laws which are enacted by the present Government and by consequence own the Authority that makes them How then can they own the Ministers and not own the Authority by which they act and if the taking a Commission from the King for the administration of publick Justice or in defence of the Kingdom be owning the Authority of the King why must not the complying with them as such be owning the Authority by which they act but if they don't own the Ministers to act by Lawful Authority then they must confess their Sentences are so many Robberies and Murthers because they have no just Authority for what they do and they make themselves accessary since it is at their request they commit them Is it not esteemed by all Laws owning the Authority of a Court to appeal to it Is it not owning the Pope's Authority to appeal to him or any Commissioned by him Is it not by the Law of Nations and an universal consent of Mankind an acknowledging a Government to receive Protection from it Do not all that go into a Foreign Prince's Dominions during their stay by receiving the Protection of the Government own themselves subject to it except Ambassadors over whom Soveraigns have agreed to suspend the exercise of their Right and are they not obliged equally with the Natives to pay Allegiance and a like guilty of Treason and so tried if they attempt any thing against it And upon this head all private attempts upon a Prince in his own Countrey have been abhorred by all Nations and those that designed any thing of this Nature have not been treated as just Enemies though in time of War because the presumption is They enter as Subjects into the Dominions of that Prince that protects them If applying to a King as such for his protection and receiving it be not owning his Authority Princes have but a small security for the obedience of the greatest numbers of their Subjects who have no otherwise obliged themselves to own their Government but by receiving protection from them The denying That addressing to a Government for protection and receiving it is owning That Government layeth a mighty gap open to Rebellion by destroying the obligation of all Allegiance but what is built upon verbal Promises So that Men of those Principles ought to be looked upon as Enemies of all Order and Government By examining what it is that gives Government a right to the obedience of men who are by nature free it will the better appear what right the present Government has to the Allegiance of those it protects The reason that is usually given why people are obliged to obey any particular Government is no Prince being so ridiculous as to pretend a right as the First-born in a direct Line from Adam or Noah because it was the intent of those who first formed the Society that such persons and their Successors if they made the Government Hereditary should have a right to govern the Nation for ever But how could they whose Authority with their Being ceased so long since oblige the Consciences of those who were not then in being or how could any Acts or Compacts of their Ancestors take away the natural Liberty of those that were born so many years after and who have the same right to freedom as they had Or how could their Compacts oblige those that are not descended from them but come from other Countries into the Society and make it a sin in them not to obey the present Governors of any Society upon whose Authority alone and not upon the Founders of the Society depends the validity of all former Laws which can only bind because it is the will of the present Powers they should otherwise no Laws could be repealed if their very being did not depend upon the pleasure of the present Supream Powers who design they shall oblige until they declare the contrary Others say That being born in a Countrey makes one a Subject for all his life to the Government of that Countrey but why should being in a Countrey by being born in it make one become a Subject more than being in the same Countrey at another time Besides common Experience shews this to be false because whoever is born in a Countrey where his Parents are Foreigners may as it is allowed by all leave that Countrey when he pleaseth But perhaps it may be said he is a Subject to that Prince where his Parents were born What if they were born under the same Circumstances or suppose his Parents are of different Countreys as if a Dutch Woman and an English Man have a Child in France since France does not pretend to him which of the Nations can claim him for their Subject or must he be divided So that the difficulty still remains how people come to be obliged to obey any particular Government which I think can only thus be solved Every person though he be born free yet he is for the sake of his own safety obliged to part with his Liberty and put himself under the protection of Government Nor can he be secure in what he enjoys but by it Nor can he have a right in a Countrey that is already possest to any thing but by owning the Government of that Countrey And by pretending to the Priviledges the rest of the Society enjoy he has owned himself a Member of the Society and a Subject of the Government of it And this is the only way that any except by verbal Promises consent to become subject to Government The consent of
particular persons being separately and singly given unthinking people take little notice of it and suppose they are as naturally Subjects as men and consequently that they have no more right to free themselves from their Subjection than from their Human Nature nay must suffer themselves to be destroyed rather than endeavour it But it may be objected If a man is no-ways bound to a Government but by his own Consent and if the Acts of his Ancestors no way oblige him he is not bound to stand to their divisions of the Lands but he may pro virili put in for a share as he might when all things were in common Ans. If it would be injustice in any one to go into a Foreign Countrey to the Laws of which he is not bound and seize any Land in it on pretence that the divisions of the Land were formerly made by people whose Acts could not oblige him and therefore he had as just a right as any of the Inhabitants to a share in the Land if this were injustice in him why would it not be so in one that is born in that Countrey What Right can he that comes from no other place but from Nothing pretend to more than he that first came from another Countrey If a Countrey be wholly possessed and occupied which by the Law of Nature antecedent to all Human Laws gives a right by being improved and cultivated by the labour and industry of the Inhabitants who are so very numerous that the Land does not produce without vast labour sufficient to maintain them what right can any that comes into this Countrey either by being born in it or any other way have to their labour by usurping any part of this Land which was long since possessed and divided amongst the the Inhabitants who having a full power over their own Properties might subject them to what Laws they pleased and which the Legislative Power may still continue and permit none to have a right to them or enjoy any advantages by them or so much as to be in the Countrey without owning the Government of it And it is highly reasonable that no Government should suffer any to remain in its Dominions who will not own its Authority or be subject to the Laws of the Countrey If it were unjust before Lands were divided to have robbed any one of the Fruits of the Earth that he by gathering had made his property why should it not be as much injustice to seize upon that Land which is now as much another's Property as the gathered Fruits were then But I shall speak no more upon this Subject because it is in his Essay of Government so fully handled by that wonderfully Ingenious and Judicious Author whose Works of all sorts one cannot enough commend Whatever Society people chance to be Members of whether it be their Native or any other they are during their stay equally obliged for the sake of the protection they receive to Pay Allegiance to the Governors of that Society It is not material whether they enjoy Properties for their lives years weeks or days the greatest part of the Natives have no more Properties or enjoy no greater Advantages by the Government than Foreigners yet they are obliged to pay the same Allegiance the rest of the Society do But here it may be objected That there is a natural Allegiance due to the Governors of the first Society Men are of which cannot be due to any other without whose consent they cannot leave the Society and when abroad are obliged when they command them to return Man being born free that distinction of legal and natural Allegiance being wholly groundless is still Master of all that Liberty he has not parted with and if the Laws of the first Society to which he has consented by being a Member of it have not obliged him not to leave the Society without the consent of the Governor he is at liberty to transport himself into what Countrey he pleaseth and to stay in it as long as he pleaseth It is for the interest of Mankind that they should not be debarred the liberty of living where it is most for their interest and because Nations could not maintain any Trade or Commerce one with another if people that went from one Countrey to another had not a power to return when they had a mind to it that Liberty by the Law of Nations is equally allowed to all They it is true who have left a Countrey whether it was that they were born in or any other yet as long as they enjoy any Property in it are obliged if they intend to save their Property to leave all other Countreys when commanded Men oftner having Properties in their Native than in any other Countrey has given occasion to some to conclude That there was a natural obligation on them to return when commanded But there can be no reason assigned from Nature why more Allegiance should be due to the Governors of that Countrey in which they were born than to the Governors of that Countrey they afterwards voluntarily go into where for the Protection they receive they are obliged to pay the same Allegiance as they did when they were in their Native Countrey And if a Foreign Prince should get the power of protecting them in their Native Countrey they would be obliged to pay him the same allegiance as they did when they were under his protection in another Countrey Because in each Countrey the protection is the same Though they that reside in a Foreign Society are equally subject with the Natives to the Laws of it and by opposing the Government would be equally guilty of Treason yet if during their stay any alteration happens in the Government contrary to the Laws they never scruple to pay allegiance to him that gets possession of the Government though his Title be never so illegal I see no reason why they should not do the same in their first Society since whatever Society they are in during their stay they are equally obliged to obey the Laws of that Society Are not these Reasons as strong for paying allegiance to the present Government Can any man enjoy the Priviledges of the Society without being a Member of the Society or can any one be a Member of a Society without owning the Head of it or paying their allegiance to him or is there any other Head that rules and governs the Members but the present King Is it not by his Authority that the Members of the Society receive an universal Protection as to their Lives Liberties and Estates under whose Government they are or else they are under none but in the state of Nature And there is no Reason or Law to oblige people to remain in a state so inconsistent with their happiness And it would be injustice for any to remain in that state because they would be their own Judges in all the Disputes they had with others who were willing to refer their
Differences to a standing impartial Judge nor have any been guilty of it but all not excepting the Jacobites by making use of the protection of the Government have left the state of Nature and have owned themselves subject to it After this what pretence can any Member of the Society have of refusing to pay their allegiance to a King whom they have all along by their actions owned and by whom they have been secured from groaning under the worst of Slaveries which had been to them the more intolerable because of the great liberty and freedom they before enjoyed so that all the Reasons that can well be imagined to oblige people firmly and intirely to any Sovereign do all conspire to tie them up in the strongest bonds of allegiance and fidelity to the present King and Queen By what hath been said I think it is evident how absolutely necessary it is for the good of Mankind to submit to those persons that are capable of protecting them and that applying to them for protection is acknowledging their Government and Authority and that the Jacobites in using the protection of the Government and at the same time opposing it as far as they dare act basely treacherously ungratefully and inconsistently But they that oppose the Government after they have sworn to be true to it break all Tyes both Sacred and Civil for if neither their Oaths nor the good of the Society they pretend to be Members of nor the duty they owe the Government for protecting them can oblige them no bonds whatever for these are the most inviolable can hold them How can any Prince or private person trust them since they have destroyed all manner of security trust and confidence men have in one another All the answer to this is I mean of the Non-swearers for the others are not capable of giving any That they act upon the presumed consent of the outed Prince who they suppose is willing that they should obey the present Government in all things which are for the good of the Society and their own preservation provided it be not contrary to his interest Which answer is not at all to the purpose because it supposeth they are still obliged to disturb the publick Peace and raise Civil Commotions for his interest and notto own the present Government though it should be absolutely necessary for their preservation Can any Civil Society be preserved if private Men are obliged not to obey those that actually Govern it except they think it for the interest of a person who is a declared Enemy to the Society and when every thing that tends to the support and advantage of the Society because it makes the present Government more potent must be against his interest What if the late King has no other way to regain his Throne but by the Ruin and Confusion of the Nation must the Jacobites assist him in Ruining the Nation as it is plain by their Principles they are obliged to do for if once they think that they are obliged to act against the good of the Society by raising a Civil War it is certain there is no mischief provided it be for his interest that they ought to stop at And it is plain by their rejoycing at any publick Calamity that happens to the Nation that they are ready if they thought it at present for his interest to fire all the Towns in England or act any more horrid Villany But if they disown these Principles and say they are obliged to act for the preservation and good of the Community contrary to his Interest and Consent then they are obliged to obey the present Government because that is for the good of the Community and for the safety of particular persons who if they have the Late king's Consent to do such acts as necessarily infer the owning the authority of the Government they have his Consent to own and obey the Government And then according to their own Principles they can have no pretence of denying allegiance to it If such acts do not amount to an owning the authority of the Government then most people never owned the Late King's authority because they owned it no other way then by receiving protection from him It is strange that not only those that receive protection from the Government but even those that have thrust themselves into places of the greatest Trust and consequently have the greatest Obligation to bear true allegiance to Their Majesties should own they have no Right to it and the greatest Compliment they can give them is That they are King and Queen de Facto which in other words is calling them Usurpers and is even whilst they are their Servants owning themselves Subjects of the Late King Men of such Principles cannot accept of Places of Trust but for verybase ends for they must either design to act against their Consciences in acting against the interest of him they esteem their Lawful and Rightful King or else they must design to betray their Trust in acting for his interest which when it is their own interest too and they may have what Price they demand for betraying their Trust there can be no doubt but they will endeavour to serve him who they think has the Right Title to their allegiance The fatal consequences that have happened to the Nation upon trusting men of those Principles have too well demonstrated the truth of it But to return If doing all those acts the Male-contents do in order to the securing their Persons and Properties be not owning themselves Subjects of the Government there was no reason for Mankind to have submitted to and owned any Government since according to their Principles they could have all manner of protection and defence without any Government because they as they pretend enjoy protection from the Government without owning its authority over them or any duty in them to obey CHAP. XI Of Oaths of Fidelity PErhaps it will be said Tho upon supposition that there is no reason why people should pay Allegiance any longer than they are protected yet if they have otherwise tyed themselves by their Oaths they are in Conscience obliged by those Oaths But I answer Such Oaths if ever such were imposed would be so far from binding that they would be null upon the account of the sinfulness of them as being directly against the good of human Societies In all Promises and all Oaths concerning things that are not Moral this tacite condition is always included of their not being or upon alteration of the Circumstances becoming contrary to the publick Good and this is without all doubt to be observed about Government because it was instituted for no other reason but for the publick Good Oaths do not alter the nature of allegiance or make it due where it was not before or any ways extend it but only add a new tye to pay that allegiance which is due upon the account of protection he that lives under a Government
proper way to make them amends If there be no other way to make reparation to their injured King but by engaging the Nation in Civil Wars they ought not to attempt making him reparation by such unlawful ways The not restoring a Person to the Crown that he is unjustly deprived of can only be considered when the publick is no longer concerned in his Actions and the Affairs of the Nation are managed by other hands as an injury to a single person and the greatness of the injury is to be judged not by the value of the thing it self but what he that is unjustly deprived of it suffers by the loss of it What is absolutely necessary for the subsistence of one person may be but superfluities to another and as the Widows Mites were greater Charity than what the Rich out of their Abundance gave so the Robbing her of them because she could less spare them would have been a greater injury and consequently a greater sin than Robbing a Rich man that could better spare it of a thousand times as much Tyrants it is true rob great numbers of the conveniences and very often of the necessaries of Life but Usurpers only hinder single persons from enjoying not the necessaries or conveniences of Life but Superfluities because all the necessaries and even conveniences of life can be had without a Crown Yet the Usurpers without all dispute if they can without any injury to the publick ought to restore the Government to those from whom they do unjustly wrest it but if they do not Subjects for the sake of Government to which Sacred Ordinance Obedience by God himself as well as man is annexed ought to submit Christ and his Apostles make no distinction but command Obedience to all in possession by annexing God's Authority to the Office of Governing CHAP. XIII Of Proofs of Scripture concerning Obedience to those that actually Administer Government CHRIST in the Directions he gave Mat. 23. to his Disciples and to the multitude about their Behaviour to the Scribes and Pharisees requires Obedience to be paid them only upon the account of Possession saying The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses's seat all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe that observe and do and gives no other reason for this great Obedience in doing and observing whatever they command but because they sat in Moses's seat that is were possessed of Moses's Authority who in the Theocracy was the Chief Magistrate Not that the Scribes and Pharisees had so great a power as Moses but as far as they did enjoy his Seat Throne and Authority so far they were to be Obeyed They were then the greatest as well as chiefest part of the grand Sanhedrin which in all causes where the Romans had left the Jews to their Liberty had the Supreme Power both in Civil and Ecclesiastical matters There were not in the Jewish Republick two distinct independant Powers one for Civil another for Ecclesiastical Causes If the people were then obliged to pay so great Obedience barely upon the account of Possession why may not the same direction serve for a standing rule to the multitude in all times And not only to the Inferiors but even to the Supreme Magistrate himself Christ requires Obedience upon no other account but that of possession If Caesar be in possession of the Empire as it did appear by his Coining of Money and Stamping his Image upon it that being a mark of Sovereignty and Empire but not of any Legal Title to it then Caesar is to have Tribute and all other parts of Allegiance paid him And St. Paul in express terms requires Obedience to the powers that be and declares there is no Power but what is from God The Jews being influenced by the Priests and Pharisees who because they were obliged by their Law to place no Stranger over them scrupled to pay obedience to the Roman Emperors because they were Strangers and not capable of a Legal Right not considering the Law did not oblige them but when it was in their own choice and not when they were under the power of the Romans to whom for the sake of protection they were obliged to pay obedience St. Paul to take away these scruples assures them all Powers are from God If St. Paul had only meant Legal Powers since none but Jews were capable of being such he had confirmed the Jews in their Error But the reason why St. Paul obliges men to submit will demonstrate that all actual Rulers are meant and none but they because they alone are a Terror to evil works and a Praise to the good none but the actual Ruler is a Minister of God a Revenger to execute wrath upon him that does evil or a Minister of God for good What can more fully demonstrate that the reason of obedience is for the benefits men receive by Government And what makes the Crime of Resisting them so great is because men Oppose those by whom they receive so many advantages It is because they have the power of the Sword which includeth all manner of Punishment by which they secure and protect their Subjects from all manner of injury and violence of ill men and being Ministers of God for good includeth all the good they receive both to their Persons and Properties for which cause you pay tribute also for they are God's ministers continually attending upon this very thing It is their dispensing these advantages to Mankind that makes them God's Ministers and God's Ordinance the Scripture affirming those things that are necessary for the good of Mankind to come from God as plowing and sowing Isaiah 28. from Verse the 23d to the 29th If it once be known as the discovery cannot be difficult who it is that beareth the Sword who administers Justice who Rewards and who Punisheth if the Apostle's word is to be taken subjection is not only due to him for Wrath but for Conscience-sake and the same Apostle exhorts That prayers be made for Kings and all in Authority that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty These reasons can only concern those that have actual Power and Authority by whose protection those that live under them may lead such lives and if it be our duty to pray that we may lead such Lives it must be our duty to enable them that have Authority over us to secure us in the enjoyment of a quiet and peaceable Life Do the Principles or Practices of the Jacobites suit with this Doctrine who instead of Praying for those in Authority make it their business by opposing them to destroy not only our Quiet and Peace and even all Godliness and Honesty too by endeavouring to set up again a Popish Governor and by consequence to introduce a Religion whose Principles are destructive of true Godliness and Honesty as well as the Peace and Quiet of the Professors of them And St. Peter for the same reason requires people to submit to the Supream